Do those Liberals, know what they're doing, in regards to "Impeachment?"

TKDB

@CYDdharta

I agree with you.

"As to the OP, I believe Pelosi knew impeachment was a bad idea, but her tenure as Speaker was likely threatened by the deluded radicals in her party.  It appears they are already paying the price."

TKDB

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767205170/trump-demands-full-house-vote-on-impeachment-before-complying-with-lawmakers

"Trump Challenges House On Impeachment Vote. Pelosi Says She's Unmoved"

October 4, 20191:04 PM ET

PHILIP EWING

President Trump talks to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House on Friday, demanding that the House formally vote on an impeachment inquiry before responding to lawmakers' requests for documents.

Evan Vucci/AP

Updated at 5:05 p.m. ET

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not rule out a vote by the full chamber on its impeachment inquiry into President Trump — but she restated her belief on Friday that none is required for it to move ahead.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said on a trip to Atlanta that she was unmoved by calls from the White House for a full vote. Trump said earlier in the day that he would send a letter to the speaker, which was expected to demand action by the full House.

"We may decide to do it, but it has nothing to do with the president saying what he's saying," Pelosi told reporters, including Robert Jimison of Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Reporters asked Trump at the White House about his willingness to accommodate congressional requests for testimony or documents.

"The lawyers think they've never seen anything so unfair," Trump said. "They've never seen anything so unjust. I've been president now for almost three years, and I've been going through this for almost three years. It's almost become, like, a part of my day."

"Trump has gone back and forth about what he may or may not release from within the administration on the Ukraine affair, and he wasn't clear on Friday about whether he might stop cooperating short of a full House vote."

"Request to Pence

That issue faced its first test not long after Pelosi spoke, when House Democratic chairman announced they're requesting documents from Vice President Pence about his dealings with the government of Ukraine.

Investigators want to know about the role Pence may have played in communicating Trump's desires to Ukrainian leaders that its government launch investigations that might help Trump in the 2020 election.

Katie Waldman, the vice president's press secretary, did not directly address whether Pence's office would give Democrats what they're requesting but did criticize them and their investigation.

"Given the scope, it does not appear to be a serious request but just another attempt by the do-nothing Democrats to call attention to their partisan impeachment," she said.

The White House's letter to Congress is expected to contend that for impeachment to be legitimate, all members in the chambers must have a chance to support or oppose it. Supporters have been making that case for some time already."

"Pelosi said on Friday that Democrats are "very comfortable" with where they are today on the status of the impeachment inquiry.

The House's rules do not mandate a vote for lawmakers to conduct an impeachment investigation, but a vote could give Republicans more power in the Democrat-led inquiry.

It would also force lawmakers in both parties to go on the record for or against the inquiry as headlines fly thick and fast about the Ukraine affair.

While most Republicans so far oppose the impeachment investigation, some GOP lawmakers also have said the Ukraine allegations are worthy of an investigation. They could also face a tough choice if put to a vote by the full House. Some moderate Democrats have yet to take a position.

When does impeachment become impeachment

"Democrats, led initially by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, argue that they've been acting on impeachment business for months.

Nadler has said as much in his hearings, and attorneys for House Democrats also have invoked impeachment in their separate legal contests with attorneys for Trump over documents and witnesses."

"The White House demand for a full vote represented the latest tactical skirmish within the broader political war over impeachment, which has sucked all the oxygen out of official Washington and largely sidelined other business between the administration and Congress.

Trump and Pelosi both have said, at different times, they thought Washington still might attempt to negotiate over other legislation — potentially involving prescription drug costs or new gun restrictions — but for now, the shadow of impeachment seems to have blotted out nearly everything else in the capital.

Trump's challenge about a vote also is an attempt to force Pelosi to truly test which of her moderate members, some of whom were elected last year in districts that Trump carried in 2016, are prepared to go on record in support of impeachment.

"Most of them, many of them, don't believe they should do it," Trump said on Friday. The president said that if Democrats move ahead, "I really believe they're going to pay a tremendous price at the polls." 

TKDB

@piloteer

@Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

@SkepticalOne

@AIofRI

@ZeusAres42

@Zombieguy1987

On Fox News, via "The Special Report with Bret Baier," a few moments ago.

During the Round Table discussion, the phrase "Political Civil War," was used.

And they are right, there is a Political Civil War, going on, between Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, along with the other participanting Liberals, who are (TALKING) about "Impeaching Trump?"

I was hoping that Pelosi, and Schiff, would publicly jump on the idea, about conducting an Impeachment Vote today, after the President, publicly stated that very idea.

And the Speaker of the House, stated that she was, "unmoved."

And its slowly becoming politically obvious, that apparently the Liberals, when it comes to the "Action, of conducting the Impeachment Vote," that the Liberals, will publicly Move on that ACTUAL, vote when the participating Liberals decide to?

Trump, played his publicity card, on the White House lawn, and the Impeachment seeking Liberals, balked at the notion.

Thanks Nancy Pelosi, your Liberal educational style, is the most impressive of all the Liberals, because you were unmoved?

Guess what Liberals, your NATIONWIDE, lack of action of conducting an Impeachment Vote today, speaks volumes, about how unmoving, your collective mindsets are, when it comes to the overall Public good, of this country, the United States of America.

piloteer

CYDdharta said:

Pres. Trump is trying to get to the bottom of election interference during the 2016 election, plain and simple.  That's what the left claimed they wanted.  

It's not what I wanted. If anyone in the CIA or FBI had information that led them to believe Hunter Biden should be investigated, then they should have done it, not the president. It's not legal to steal from someone because they may be a criminal themselves. It's also not legal for a president to solicit information from a foreign country about a rival political candidate. No matter what the president claims his true intentions were, it doesn't make those actions legal. You can't do something that's illegal to investigate an assumption of an illegal action. There are other investigative entities that could have done that job without breaking the law, but it seems they don't think Hunter Biden did anything that warrants an investigation, so that should have been the end of it.      

all4actt

I thought I had already comminted on this but I don't see it. So I will try again.  If I did alresdy make the statment I must have missed it.

AlofRi
You said>>>Clinton, and HE was convicted about lying about one thing. 

You need to check your history.  President Clinton was indicted on 11, not one,  criminal charges.  After his presidency he was given a plea deal of a lifetime.  One I have to say not one of us would have gotten.


On topic I argued before Trump took his stance of not compling with supeans until the impeachment was made official by bringing it to the floor for a vote, that the impeachment inquiery needs to be made official.  The reason for this is as long as they keep running it the way they are it cuts out any other parties ability to call witness'.  Therefore how can it be a fair assesment when we only get to hear from hand picked witness' from that the Democractic Party choose?

Pelosi must take this to the floor for a vote.  If she wins then maybe there might be a proper inquiry.  Until the standard and proper steps are taken I think the whole thing is just another stunt on the part of the DNC.

piloteer

@all4actt

If you're trying to address AlofRi, you may want to press the reply icon under one of AlofRi's arguments so they will get a notification that you're addressing them specifically.  If not, they may never know about the argument you just made.

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

It's not what I wanted.

You don't want to get to the bottom of election interference in the 2016 election?  Dismissing corruption is a really hard-left position.

If anyone in the CIA or FBI had information that led them to believe Hunter Biden should be investigated, then they should have done it, not the president.

It appears Hunter Biden IS being investigated and not by the president.  Barr and Durham are looking into it.

It's not legal to steal from someone because they may be a criminal themselves. It's also not legal for a president to solicit information from a foreign country about a rival political candidate. No matter what the president claims his true intentions were, it doesn't make those actions legal. You can't do something that's illegal to investigate an assumption of an illegal action. There are other investigative entities that could have done that job without breaking the law, but it seems they don't think Hunter Biden did anything that warrants an investigation, so that should have been the end of it.     

Other investigative agencies ARE doing the job.  Trump isn't personally investigating anything, he's just trying to set up cooperation between the US justice department and the Ukrainian counterparts.  Investigating corruption is NOT illegal, not yet anyway.  It is something a president should be applauded for.  Draining the swamp was one of the main reasons Pres. Trump was elected. If Biden is innocent, he shouldn't have any concerns.  He should be looking forward to the investigation clearing his name, that was one of the arguments for the Mueller investigation.  The fact that so many people in such high positions object so strenuously to the investigation shows they KNOW Biden is guilty.  Voters deserve to know what corruption the candidates have been involved in when they go to the polls.

It's also not legal for a president to solicit information from a foreign country about a rival political candidate.

This is a joke, right?  It's just fine for a Dem candidate to solicit information from a foreign country about a rival political candidate. right?  And it's OK for an outgoing administration to solicit information from a foreign country about a rival political candidate on behalf of his favored candidate.

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@all4actt

If you're trying to address AlofRi, you may want to press the reply icon under one of AlofRi's arguments so they will get a notification that you're addressing them specifically.  If not, they may never know about the argument you just made.

Don't count on it.  I didn't get a notification on your reply above.

piloteer

@CYDdharta

I don't want the president to break the law, even if he claims his intentions are righteous. If Hunter Biden is being investigated, the president, or anybody in his staff should not have interfered by having any kind of discussions with Ukraine regarding the Biden's because that's not his duty as a president. If any democrats solicited information from a foreign country about a rival political candidate, then only the proper investigative entities should have investigated. Just because a rival candidate may have done it, it doesn't suddenly make it legal for our current president to violate the constitution. They are probably all guilty as far as I'm concerned, and if they are all proven guilty, they should be prosecuted accordingly. I never voted for any of them, so I why should I have to suffer if the constitution becomes invalid in the name of "getting to the bottom of corruption"? 

You didn't get a notification about my earlier post because I only quoted a post by you, but I didn't press the "reply" icon under your post. I guess this site differentiates between quoting and replying. That's why you got a notification for this post.           

all4actt

Has a law been broken?  If so which law?

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

I don't want the president to break the law, even if he claims his intentions are righteous. If Hunter Biden is being investigated, the president, or anybody in his staff should not have interfered by having any kind of discussions with Ukraine regarding the Biden's because that's not his duty as a president. If any democrats solicited information from a foreign country about a rival political candidate, then only the proper investigative entities should have investigated. Just because a rival candidate may have done it, it doesn't suddenly make it legal for our current president to violate the constitution. They are probably all guilty as far as I'm concerned, and if they are all proven guilty, they should be prosecuted accordingly. I never voted for any of them, so I why should I have to suffer if the constitution becomes invalid in the name of "getting to the bottom of corruption"? 

You didn't get a notification about my earlier post because I only quoted a post by you, but I didn't press the "reply" icon under your post. I guess this site differentiates between quoting and replying. That's why you got a notification for this post.           

Good thing Pres. Trump didn't break the law.  "Violate the constitution"???  I'm not sure what constitution you're reading, but none of this is covered in the US Constitution.

CYDdharta

As I said before; this isn't an impeachment, it's a Kabuki dance version of an impeachment, pure political theater meant to manipulate voters and affect the election.  Isn't that what they're claiming Pres. Trump is doing?  As I've often said, projection is the left's favorite tool.

What is portrayed as an “impeachment inquiry” is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign. 

The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.

Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.

The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees — Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.

But standing committees do have subpoena power, so why not use it? Well, because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object. Democrats want to have an impeachment show — um, inquiry — on television; they do not want to defend its bona fides in court.

They certainly do not want to defend their letter. The Democrats’ media scribes note the chairmen’s admonition that any failure by Pompeo to comply “shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.” What a crock. 

In criminal proceedings, prosecutors demand information all the time and witnesses often resist — just as congressional Democrats encouraged the Justice Department and FBI to resist when Republican-controlled committees were trying to investigate such matters as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse. Presumptively, resisting an information request is not evidence of obstruction. It is evidence that the recipient of the demand believes he or she has a legal privilege that excuses compliance. The recipient can be wrong about that without being guilty of obstruction. 

Congressional Democrats know this, of course — many of them are lawyers. They are issuing partisan letters that pose legally offensive threats, rather than subpoenas, because this is a show, not an impeachment inquiry. Subpoenas don’t require chest-beating about obstruction. Everyone knows they are compulsory, but everyone also knows they may be challenged in court. Such challenges take time, though, and Democrats are in a hurry to close this show after a short run.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/464140-ignore-the-hype-this-is-not-an-impeachment-inquiry

TKDB

I saw this individual on Fox news this morning with Neil Cavuto:

https://www.foxnews.com/person/s/antjuan-seawright

"Antjuan Seawright

Antjuan Seawright is a Democratic strategist based in South Carolina and founder and CEO of Blueprint Strategy LLC"


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/antjuan-seawright-democrats-trump-2020-election

"Antjuan Seawright: Democrats, it's game on in the fight to defeat Trump. Never forget these four things"

 By Antjuan Seawright | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/antjuan-seawright-accessibility-affordability

"Antjuan Seawright: Here's the Democratic key to victory in 2020"

 By Antjuan Seawright | Fox News



https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/antjuan-seawright-thank-you-sen-ernest-fritz-hollings-for-your-service-and-leadership

"Antjuan Seawright: Thank you, Sen. Ernest 'Fritz' Hollings, for your service and leadership"

 By Antjuan Seawright | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-need-to-investigate-and-legislate-it-takes-two-to-make-the-thing-go-right

"Democrats need to investigate AND legislate -- It takes two to make the thing go right"

 By Antjuan Seawright | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2020-democratic-candidates-heres-this-veterans-campaign-advice-youre-not-obama-so-dont-try-to-be

"2020 Democratic candidates here's some campaign advice: You're not Obama, so don't try to be"

 By Antjuan Seawright | Fox News


The above are his, apparent growing list of "Opinion," articles?

From Mr. Antjuan Seawright on Twitter.

Antjuan Seawright

@antjuansea

·

2h

"Leader of the free world!"

Quote Tweet

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

· 2h

"Mitt Romney never knew how to win. He is a pompous “blank" who has been fighting me from the beginning, except when he begged me for my endorsement for his Senate run (I gave it to him), and when he begged me to be Secretary of State (I didn’t give it to him). He is so bad for R’s! "

Another Liberal, apparently utilizing the current POTUS, as his individual platform, to push his rhetoric as well? 

Just as Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Green, Nadler, AOC, Harris, Booker, Schiff, and the other Impeachment talking, Liberal talking heads have?

2019, is the year of the, "Impeachment talking head's, Impeachment movement."

piloteer

@CYDdharta

He violated the constitution by classifying the transcripts of the conversation with Ukraine. Nowhere in the original text of constitution, or any subsequent legislation can we find any clause that gives a president the power to classify information without proper justification. It's worth noting that the original text of the constitution does not give a president the authority to classify anything, but unfortunately additional legislation has since granted presidents that power, but not without legal precedents for justification. He violated executive order 13526 (classification of National security information act of December 29, 2009). The reasons for classifying those transcripts do not fit the criteria for justifying the classification of the transcripts. The constitution, or any subsequent legislation does not grant the president the power to classify any and all information on a whim. If the president cannot explain to Congress why the disclosure of the classified information is a threat to national security, then it is a violation to have classified it to begin with. The fact that the president wants Ukraine and China to investigate the actions of Hunter Biden and his father is not a threat to national security, and the president has since gone public with that information, so it's obviously no kind of threat to anybody but the president and his reelection committee. If the president didn't do anything that violated the constitution, why did he want to classify the transcripts to begin with? 

It's illegal to solicit anything from a foreign country. Even if it's information on a rival political candidate, so that is another violation of the constitution. And receiving money from foreign diplomats who stay at hotels the president owns is also a violation of the constitution. Threatening a possible civil war if he's impeached is a violation of the constitution. Trying to find the identity and question the "whistleblower" who came forward with the information of the inappropriately classified transcript is a violation of the constitution.    

    

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

He violated the constitution by classifying the transcripts of the conversation with Ukraine. Nowhere in the original text of constitution, or any subsequent legislation can we find any clause that gives a president the power to classify information without proper justification. It's worth noting that the original text of the constitution does not give a president the authority to classify anything, but unfortunately additional legislation has since granted presidents that power, but not without legal precedents for justification. He violated executive order 13526 (classification of National security information act of December 29, 2009). The reasons for classifying those transcripts do not fit the criteria for justifying the classification of the transcripts. The constitution, or any subsequent legislation does not grant the president the power to classify any and all information on a whim. If the president cannot explain to Congress why the disclosure of the classified information is a threat to national security, then it is a violation to have classified it to begin with. The fact that the president wants Ukraine and China to investigate the actions of Hunter Biden and his father is not a threat to national security, and the president has since gone public with that information, so it's obviously no kind of threat to anybody but the president and his reelection committee. If the president didn't do anything that violated the constitution, why did he want to classify the transcripts to begin with?

Where did you get this garbage???  You obviously have never, NEVER, handled classified materials.  I used to work in USAF comm centers, processing classified messages was among my primary duties.  Over-classification is rampant, but it is the precedent.  I remember reading a portion of a newspaper article that was classified.  I could see some justification for classifying a newspaper article that was quoted and an official, usually an ambassador, added their comments, but I've seen such reprints classified with no comments added.  Private conversations between the President and other heads of state are classified BY DEFAULT.  This is done, among other reasons, to instill trust in foreign leaders so that they can speak freely without having to worry that details, which may turn out to be politically damaging to those foreign leaders, won't find their way into the press.  Pres. Trump didn't classify those transcripts, White House staff did, following decades or more of precedent.  Do you think the transcribed conversation is more likely to help or hurt Ukrainian/German relations?  Pres. Trump releasing the transcripts to the public is UN-precedented.  Pelosi never expected him to do that.  They wanted to be able to claim that Pres. Trump was hiding something when they knew they were just making stuff up.  The Dems' plan would have worked if Pres. Trump had been a typical politician.  And I don't know why you keep bringing up the constitution when the US Constitution has absolutely NOTHING to say about the matter at hand.  How about next time for a change of pace, you bring up the Declaration of Independence or the Rush–Bagot Treaty?   There's no end to the number of irrelevant official documents you could mention.

It's illegal to solicit anything from a foreign country. Even if it's information on a rival political candidate, so that is another violation of the constitution. And receiving money from foreign diplomats who stay at hotels the president owns is also a violation of the constitution. Threatening a possible civil war if he's impeached is a violation of the constitution. Trying to find the identity and question the "whistleblower" who came forward with the information of the inappropriately classified transcript is a violation of the constitution.   

I'll tell you the same thing I told Ampersand.  Your position is beyond ridiculous.  Anything a president does can be claimed to sway some amount of voters. Cutting taxes, confronting corruption (as is the case here), reducing homelessness, even naming a post office or eating at McDonald's can be argued as something of value in relation to elections.  What you're saying is that a president should do absolutely nothing for at least their first term.

CYDdharta

Whatdoyaknow, it looks like the "whistleblower" is not only a disgruntled 0bama administration employee who lost his/her job when Pres. Trump took office, but was also a member of the team investigating candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 election.  No conflict of interest here, he scoffs.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/report-ex-cia-impeachment-whistleblower-dug-up-dirt-against-trump-in-ukraine/

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Mark Levin, was talking about that on his show yesterday. 

The Liberals, have created a mess for themselves. 

TKDB

Now the Whistleblowers have an attorney on Twitter making their Twitter Publicity rounds as well:

Andrew P. Bakaj

@AndrewBakaj

"IC WHISTLEBLOWER UPDATE: I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers in connection to the underlying August 12, 2019, disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General. No further comment at this time."

Quote Tweet